Thailand’s peculiar interregnum

For the last few decades, one of the favourite pastimes in Thailand has been to gossip about the question of succession. Rumors of all stripes and colours—the only form of “information” on the question given that public discussion on the topic risks lese majeste charges—have been bandied about. Many scholars believe that one of the reasons behind the coups in 2006 and 2014 was to ensure that the military managed succession in the advent of the king’s passing.[1]

Given the importance of the process and if the intent of the military is truly to provide stability, one might think that succession needed to be as straight-forward as possible. So it is more than surprising that the throne remains empty even after seven days of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s passing. How is the government handling the awkward state of affairs and what might it mean?

The purpose of the Palace Law on Succession of 1924 and corresponding constitutional provisions were intended to eliminate ambiguity from the process of succession. In this case, King Bhumibol designated an heir-apparent in 1972. So Section 23 of the 2007 constitution provides a clear set of steps:

In the case where the Throne becomes vacant and the King has already appointed His Heir to the Throne under the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467, the Council of Ministers shall notify the President of the National Assembly. The President of the National Assembly shall convoke the National Assembly for the acknowledgement thereof, and the President of the National Assembly shall invite such Heir to ascend the Throne and proclaim such Heir King.

In short, these five steps are:

A designated heir-apparent is named

Cabinet tells the president of assembly

The president calls a meeting of said assembly

The assembly acknowledges the heir

The president invites heir-apparent to take throne and proclaims him king.

It appears in this case, something went off course in the second, fourth, and fifth steps. The prime minister had done his duty in notifying the president of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) but then added:

His Royal Highness’s only wish is to not let the people experience confusion or worry about the service of the land or even the ascension to the throne…He said that at this moment, everyone and every side, including His Royal Highness himself, are still stricken by grief and sorrow, so every side should get through . . . this enormous grief first. When the religious ceremony and funeral have passed, then it will be an appropriate time to proceed.

It was suggested that ceremonies could take as long as a year.

The NLA apparently only acknowledged the King’s passing and its president “will invite His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn to ascend the throne by law and tradition shortly.” On 14 October, the NLA vice-president announced that Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda has been named “Regent pro tempore” by virtue of Section 24 of the constitution which states: “Pending the proclamation of the name of the Heir or the Successor to the Throne under section 23, the President of the Privy Council shall be Regent pro tempore.”

The NLA vice-president said that during the evening session on 13 October, “the cabinet should have submitted the heir name for acknowledgment. Then the NLA chairman would invite the heir to step on the throne.” As the prime minister told the NLA that the crown prince needed time to grieve, “a regent pro tempore is needed during this transition period,” and that the Privy Council president “automatically” took the position.

On 15 October, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam clarified the situation for the public. First, as Prem had been made regent, the Privy Council would elect a new president. Once a successor had been proclaimed, the regent would “automatically” be reinstated as president of the Privy Council. Second, Wissanu wanted to counter rumors that “the regent could nominate the new king as he sees fit.” Saying “there is no question as to who is going to be the new king” as the late king had designated an heir-apparent. “The steps to be taken are just a formality to fulfil the late king’s wish,” he added.

The cabinet notifies the NLA president, the assembly is convened to acknowledge the notification, and then “its president shall seek an audience with the Heir to invite him to be king. After that, it will be announced to the public.” At that point, Wissanu announced, “Thailand will have a new king,” whose reign would be counted from 13 October, thus “the continuity of the royal line is uninterrupted.”

The deputy prime minister said that in fact the prime minister had not, could not, inform the NLA about the heir as the crown prince had said he wanted some time “before accepting the invitation,” and so “the NLA simply acknowledged the passing of the King” before adjourning. As such, the heir-apparent, as “next in line to the king” has “no authority except for royal ceremonies.” He could then not, for instance, sign the new constitution.

Finally, the deputy prime minister, in yet one more level removed from the source, quotes the prime minister who recounted what the crown prince had told him, “HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn told the prime minister he would like everything to be the same as it was when HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej was still alive, at least for now. He said: ‘Don’t let it be felt that the kingdom is empty. Let’s not turn everything into the past so fast. Let’s cherish it as the present.’”

The prime minister announced that he and the new regent had been granted an audience with the crown prince that evening. He said the crown prince did not wish “the people not to be confused or feel concerned over the succession to the Throne because this matter is clearly stated in the constitution, the Palace Law and traditions.” According to the prime minister, the heir-apparent wanted “to join the Thai people in mourning the passing of his father before he accepted the invitation to become the new king,” and that “the coronation could take place sometime after the royal cremation.”

The prime minister announced on 18 October, seemingly as a rule, that “Thailand must observe at least 15 days of mourning for King Bhumibol Adulyadej before his successor can ascend the throne.” He seemed to be addressing unspecified concerns, perhaps related to the impression the government had left that succession would not happen until after a year of mourning: “On the matter of succession, in accordance with the constitution, citizens in Thailand and abroad should not be worried or concerned.” He seemed to imply that the crown prince could ascend the throne now and the actual day of coronation was another matter.

Latter in the day, it was reported that the crown prince had assented to having Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn oversee the royal cremation—while the crown prince has yet to appear or say anything on his own behalf since the King’s passing.

II.

To get at the significance, or possible significance of what has happened so far, let me pose some questions and suggest some answers.

Q: Is there or isn’t there a king in Thailand right now? Has Thailand ever left the throne vacant before?It seems from Wissanu’s so-called clarification, the reign of Rama X has started, even before there is a king to occupy the throne. When the ascension actually happens, then the start date will be backdated. He says clearly that there is now no king, and talks in future tense of one.

Has this ever happened before? As a general rule of monarchy, it is for stability’s sake that a throne be reoccupied as soon as possible: “The king is dead. Long live the king.” In some countries, like Norway for instance, it is constitutionally stipulated that the throne be continuously occupied; upon the death of King Olaf V in 1991, King Harald V became king. A few days later he made an oath before parliament and six months later was crowned/consecrated.

In Thailand/Siam, the same tradition has been held. Section 6 of the Royal Succession law reads (emphasis added):

Once the King has designated the Heir to the Throne and has had such designation proclaimed to members of the Royal Family, officials and the public at large, the position of such Heir is secure and indisputable. When the necessary time comes, the said Heir shall immediately ascend the throne to succeed the late King in accordance with the latter’s wish.

Even in chaotic situations and when the nation felt a great loss, the Thai royal family has made sure someone was on the throne.[2] One can imagine the confusion after the death of the young King Rama VIII who died without a designated heir-apparent. But before the day was out, King Rama IX had been proclaimed king.

The deputy prime minister said that the government was “crafting the process” by taking into consideration “the constitution, Palace Law and traditions.” But either the Cabinet did not notify or the NLA did not acknowledge, and so the NLA president did not proclaim the new king.

As a result, Thailand is in an interregnum, with the throne vacant and a regent acting in a king’s/the king’s name (which king, exactly?). Or is the late king still reigning?[3]

Q: Had the Cabinet and National Legislative Assembly complied with their constitutional obligations?No, it appears that they had not. Ostensibly, these parties did not comply with the constitution out of sensitivity to the alleged request of the crown prince. The Cabinet or NLA could have said something to the effect that “Yes, you may grieve, but in the meantime we proclaim you king.” There is nothing in tradition—if “tradition” here means history—the constitution, or the Palace Law requiring consent of the one made king.

But because the procedure was not followed, it allowed an opening—the “automatic” assumption of the president of the Privy Council to the position of regent.

Q: Was the deputy prime minister right when he said that the regent can’t change the Palace Law or designate another?It does not appear that he was. At the same time, the prime minister has said that succession will happen according to Section 23 of the constitution. But Section 22 could change how Section 23 plays out. The former says that “the succession to the Throne shall be in accordance with the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467.” It then explains how this law may be changed. It is the sole prerogative of the king to change the law.

However, this could easily be interpreted to mean that when there is no king, a regent could, as royal authority lies with him (or her). A king (or a regent) can initiate an amendment and the Privy Council would then draft it and present it to the king. When the king approves the draft, he then signs it, and the president of the Privy Council then has to merely “notify” the president of the assembly who in turn then merely informs the assembly. The present of the assembly countersigns “the Royal Command, and the Palace Law Amendment shall have the force of law upon its publication in the Government Gazette.”

The Privy Council could cite Section 10 of the Palace Law:

Section 10. Whoever is to ascend to the throne should be one who the masses fully respect and can be contentedly taken as their protector. Therefore any royalty whom the multitude holds as loathsome, such person should foreswear the path to succession in order to remove the worry from the King and the people of the realm.

It could then designate a new candidate, submit the name to Cabinet which would be obligated to notify the NLA. If this manoeuvre attempted, it would be completely “legal” and there would be very little legal recourse in challenging it.[4]

III.

How likely is a scenario deviating from the straight-forward process we seem to be faced with now? Not very, one would like to think. But with each passing hour and day that the throne remains empty, doubt grows.

The possibility of an alternative succession scenario has been described in academic articles for some time now. For instance, Michael J Montesano, predicted in 2009 that:

The nature of the network monarchy and the Privy Council themselves, the example of the early years of the current reign, and indeed the spirit of ostensible consensus relating to royal succession characteristic of nineteenth-century Siam all make likely an attempt among royalist insiders to effect a managed transition to the next reign.[5]

The impulse to intervene might be part of a larger cultural orientation concerning Southeast Asian conceptions of kingship and succession. Robert Solomon notes that traditional models of kingship in Southeast Asia were characterised by a “vagueness of succession” that allows elite factions (and maybe, sometimes, along with the people) to find compromise.

Southeast Asian practice – and ideal – regarding royal succession kept within the two poles of standardisation of rules (which makes the transfer of office a smoother, more acceptable affair) and flexibility (necessary to maintain a minimal level of competence and adequacy). …where the rules of succession were vague, legitimising concept and ritual had to be strong to maintain stability; or, where the aura of legitimacy was inordinately powerful, principles of succession had to avoid complete automaticity.[6]

But would such managing/intervention afforded by vagueness be accepted in modern-day Thailand? Would the Bangkok elite or a faction of it actually take this fateful step?

Unfortunately, the answer might be yes. The impulse to intervene in succession is the same that drives generals to stage coups and feel absolutely comfortable and confident in jailing hundreds for perceived insults to the monarchy. Members of the Bangkok elite consider themselves as morally superior persons. They prefer coups to elections because it is they who know the real problems and ways to solve them. It is a waste of time, or even dangerous, to share power with the masses. Coups also save the monarchy from the deleterious effects of corrupt politicians who might unscrupulously put a puppet on the throne.

One of the key reasons for engineering coups was to ensure that pro-Thaksin governments were not in power when succession happened. But if the succession process was already as straight forward as could be—in other words, it would be the same under a pro-Thaksin government as a military one—why indeed did they stage a coup in the first place, unless it for the Bangkok elite to produce a different outcome?

If something does run afoul with the succession, the Thai public can be sure that it never learn the details; criticism of the new configuration of royal position in the person of the regent produced its first lese majeste case earlier this week.

David Streckfuss is an Honorary Fellow at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

End notes

[1] For this article, I draw on two of my previous short pieces: the chapter on succession in Nicholas Grossman and Dominic Faulder (editors), King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work (Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2012), and “Future of Monarchy in Thailand,” Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia (13), March 2013, “Monarchies in Southeast Asia.”

[2] In 1935, the throne remained empty for five days after King Rama VII abdicated without designating an heir.

[4] King Rama VII pondered the question and seemed unable to say whether kings elected by a small group of royal elders or by designating their own successors was better. If kings did not designate an heir-apparent, upon his death “the vying for royal power has opened an opportunity for persons…who have been obstructive to the prosperity of the kingdom” and “has brought disaster to the Thai nation. The king has thus desired to have a law determining succession in order to reduce trouble of contending [for the throne] within the royal family.” On the other hand, primogeniture also posed problems:

The King has absolute power in everything. This principle is very good and very suitable for the country, as long as we have a good King. If the King is really an Elected King, it is probable that he would be a fairly good King. But this idea of election is really a very theoretical one, and in reality the King(s) of Siam are really hereditary, with a very limited possibility of choice. Such being the case, it is not at all certain that we shall always have a good King. Then the absolute power may become a positive danger to the country. …Some sort of GUARANTEE must be found against an unwise King.

52 Responses

I understand the legal limitation you’re under if you’re in Thailand (or, still have to go to Thailand).

But to say that the Cabinet and the NLA “did not fulfill their constitutional duties….” is a best half-true. And it could be quite misleading. You suggest that they could have said “Yes, you may grieve but in the meantime, we proclaim you king.”. This is impossible as of the real situations in Thailand. (Or, considering how the 112 have been used, they could have been charged with violating it, just simply saying such a thing.)

In other words, yes the NLA and the Cabinet did not fulfill their constitutional duty, but it’s the RESULT of the failure of the CP’s failure to fulfill his FIRST.

About the second question. No, legally speaking, the regent couldn’t change the succession law or name new monarch. This is because not only that Thailand now has no king. the position of regent itself is problematic too. He is supposed to represent a monarch, (“ผู้แทนพระองค์”) but if the country has no king, there’s no one he could represent. (The problem goes back to the flaw of article 24 itself, which is supposed to be in force for only a very short time, probably just hours, not days, in which case its flaw wouldn’t have caused any practical problem.) Hence he couldn’t have the power belonging to a monarch (change the succession law, etc.)

In short, Thailand is now in a Constitutional Crisis, as a result of a move, a very dumb move, by the CP.

‘a person who acts as a locum tenens (placeholder) in the absence of a superior, such as the President pro tempore of the United States Senate, who acts in place of the President of the United States Senate, the Vice President of the United States.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_tempore

The Regent pro tempore would appear to have all of the power of the head of state.

No, sorry, but you’re quite mistaken and don’t get the point of the issue at stake here, simply by the fact that you cite sections 17, 18, 21 (as I’ll explain in a moment).

The issue is not the “pro tempore” of the regent as such, but who is he representing.

Sections 17, 18, 21 are premised on the fact that there IS a living king; only he is not able to name a regent. But a king, there definitely is.

But section 24 is premised on the fact that there is, for the time being, no king at all. (And this is the flaw of section 24 that I mentioned; it’s supposed to be applied for a VERY short period of time, which wouldn’t have caused any practical or legal problem).

Now, you also cite the example of the US. This further illustrates my point, if understood correctly. A person who temporarily acts as POTUS, IS also, while he so acts, a POTUS, only temporarily – an ACTING POTUS. Hence during that time, the US would have a President, only an acting one.

But, according to Thai laws (and Thai state’s legal status as a kingdom), Prem, a non-royal, could not be an acting KING; only a prince could possibly be.

In the land where lese majeste is king, anyone related to this process could be charged, owing to the problem of whose majeste it is being damaged. For instance, the NLA president could conceivably be charged for not proclaiming, or the PM, as they were not carrying out fully the wish of Rama IX who is, by virtue of a Supreme Court case, possibly still covered by the law. Or I, now that you mention it (but hadn’t thought of it), could be charged for putting imagined words in the mouth of the NLA president that used the wrong pronoun, or you could be charged for suggesting that the regent doesn’t have certain powers since he is certainly covered by 112 now.

As the PM did not present a letter from the CP with his wish in this unprecedented occasion, the case could be made that they were constitutionally obligated to carry out their duty, as what they heard was second-hand and not official. So *legally* (as much as that word still has meaning in Thailand), it would appear that the task was not correctly carried out–and thus someone could make a case of it. It is not so much a matter of truth or not truth or half-truth but how the already tortured body of Thai law could be brought to bear, and subjected to further torture, in this situation.

There is a little precedence for this. Austria had its last monarch in the early 1920s, but a regent stayed on, for some reason, even without a king, for more than a decade after, acting, more or less as king. This is different than the normal “leaving the country” temporary regency that happens in many monarchies around the world. Does the present regent have the power to change the Palace Law? Who knows–it’s never come up before. But if from the deputy prime minister statement that the CP couldn’t sign off on the constitution, it would seem to imply that the regent could. If the regent could do that, then perhaps he could claim that he could change the Palace Law as well.

But it also stands to reason that regents can change palace laws as a general rule, for that is in some ways a regent is for. There could be situation that there is a period when there is no king and some condition of the palace law itself makes it impossible to get a new one proclaimed. The only person with the authority to change the law would be the regent–or that country would not be able to be a monarchy anymore.

Final point– you are right–if things don’t get resolved soon, or they are resolved in some peculiar way, this will become the mother of all constitutional court cases.

The Prince and his backer Prayut are an even greater danger to the monarchy than Thaksin. The Thaksin road leads to conventional constitutional monarchy, with a powerful elected government and reduced power for the Monarch and his/her courtiers. But the Prayut road leads to a monarch “whom the multitude holds as loathsome”, and quite easily thence to the complete overthrow of monarchy and the formation of a Thai republic.

Whatever else you may think of the CP I do not think he is dumb. Nor do I think he can be easily manouevred. One thing that does occur to me (I may well be wrong) is that by standing “above the fray” for sufficient time, the CP avoids the necessity of endorsing the new constitution which has to be endorsed by the regent. In this way the CP avoids being associated too closely with what is bound to be a constitution increasingly abhorred as time goes by.

None of you guys understand just the slightest thing of what’s going on in Thailand.

Oh, yes, for sure, you are very good in reading paragraphs, laws, etc., and interpreting them. But how good do you have to be for that? Nevertheless, and no matter what you read, investigate and translate, You are all wrong.

Just like in any other country. A law is just a law, used for a specific purpose. Do I really need to explain this?

‘Dumb move’? ‘Brilliant maneuver’? Show of confidence? For me, I don’t know. But it does signal continuity with the 9th reign: by not following constitutional procedures and theoretically taking the country into a black hole, the prince, Prayuth and Prem have shown that they don’t think much of the constitution that so many people worked on and so many people voted in support of. As usual, the law does not apply to them. Certainly in their discussions someone told them, ‘the constitution doesn’t actually allow or cover this situation.’ And so someone else had to reply ‘mai ben rai’. I wonder who said it first.

In relation to Prem and the above constitutional debacle; I’m reminded of a favorite movie scene, a quote from ‘The Madness of King George’.

In it, Baron Thurlow, the Chancellor, tears out the page of the church register, that bears the record of the secret marriage of the Prince of Wales to a Catholic…
Clergyman: “You can’t do that! It’s against the law!”
Thurlow: “I *am* the law.”

Great article and interesting discussion. But I wonder how much effort is worth expending on questions of ‘law’ in Thailand at the present time? Surely it’s pretty obvious that the laws come out of the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao, and the laws will turn out to mean whatever the winners say they mean? Can anyone genuinely foresee a legal pronouncement by Prayut being overturned on legal grounds? And if so, by whom?

Thailand’s Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn will fly overseas on Friday night and return home next month, three senior military sources with knowledge of the matter said, two weeks after the death of his father, the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

The departure comes during a timeframe the military government had identified for the prince to ascend the throne, with Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha saying last week it could be within seven to 15 days of the king’s death, or even later.

The situation with regards to the succession becomes ever stranger. First a regent was installed who has no kin relation at all with the dynasty. In fact the current regent is a commoner, and to instal him as regent was done by a non-royal committee. Now the constitution is changed and the name of the king substituted by a dotted line. In other words, Thailand does not have a king at present, which can only mean that at least until a new king has been properly installed (not necessarily coronated) there is no monarchy in Thailand! How shall this be interpreted?

Prayut still needs the Crown Prince as King – to sign off on Prayut’s new, “referendum-endorsed” Constitution. Bumiphol’s departure was very unfortunate for Prayut in this regard. Had it not happened when it did, Prayut would have had ultimate, incontestable endorsement. Now Prayut is forced to go for either second best – I.e. CP endorsement, but for this the CP HAS TO become King. Or third best, I.e. Prem, 96 years old as Regent Tempore endorses Prayut’s Constitution. Prayut is in a helluva bind. He’s now trying to squirm out of it. As Marx said : “men make history, but NOT in circumstances of their choosing”!!

Chris I am not sure some of the commentators that write on “royal affairs” in Thailand are even aware of Marx. Notwithstanding according to The Economist the most widely read writer by its readers in the 20th Century was in fact Marx. I am also not even sure whether all/many NM readers actually read The Economist on a regular basis although the print versions in Thailand are so often “voluntarily” withdrawn by the local distributor that I cancelled my print version.

I went on a tour to Vietnam last year with in-laws in a tour organized and marketed in Thailand. It was all Thais but me, a range of professions, nobody very rich, nobody very poor. A middle class Thai tour group? The major activity was shopping, but there was a lot of site seeing, a number of historical stops. It was a good tour.

There was a Vietnames tour guide in attendance. He had been born in Thailand in the Northeast, ethnically Vietnames, lived in Thailand through middle school or high school, then back to Vietnam with his family. They lived in the North; he was in the army or some other branch of service. After the war he had worked for a large Thailand based agricultural company, and he was now retired, doing tour groups as a part time gig.

In between stops, as the bus rolled down the highway or wended it way through Hanoi city streets, it was his job to fill the time with commentary and stories. Much of it was standard tourist talk, on the right we have …, on the left we have … . But he had several other themes that he interwove — the rock solid support that Vietnam had received from Russia through the war years and after, the failure of endurance that had been the American fate in the war, and the history of Communist thought from Marx through Stalin. Pretty garbled, but surely the first time any of my tour companions had heard such things spoken about with that much enthusiasm. It was quite fun. Nobody complained or even argued back.

I assumed he referred to the American War. Recently I got into a spat with a World Bank staffer who tried to refer to the American War as the Vietnam War but the Vietnamese born in the North supported me against him and reminded him that McNamara went from supporting the war by the Americans in Vietnam to opposing it. Amazingly this WB staffer did not know this but like many of these “new development professionals” his sense of history and herstory in the region is very limited.

None of the Thais knew about the 1980s when Vietnamese troops were along Thailand’s Cambodian border? Or just didn’t dare to ask? Sometimes the tanks came very close. And surely they would be familiar with the nearly 20-year stream of refugees by land and boat to Thailand?

The man’s story doesn’t make much sense since it would be well into the 1990s before a company like CP would be employing northerners. You think this man was fighting in Cambodia or doing something else there? And you can hardly say Russia’s support was “rock solid” when Vietnam’s adventure in Cambodia finally ended when the Russians got fed up with funding it.

But hang on Falang – the CP is reliably reported as NOT returning to Thailand, until November 11 – Rememberance Day. So does this mean Prem signs off on Prayut’s Charter – then two days later, the CP returns ? Certainly something to remember!

I think you’ll find, Chris Beale, that in a country like Thailand, where a written constitution is little more than a series of moves in the game rather than the board upon which the game is played, most of those actually involved would find nothing but a kind of grim humor in either situation of “lack”, as you see it.

All these posts which presume the universality of some quasi-American notion of “constitutionality” make me think of Piaget and Kohlberg and their stages of moral-cognitive development and the rather obvious truth of the observation that very few individuals ever reach or apply the kind of “thinking” involved at the highest stage in each formulation.

“Look mom! There’s a man wearing a dress over there!”
“That’s not a dress, honey. It’s called hakama.”
“Yeah, sure mom. You’re as nuts as he is! Hahahaha!”

Michael, honey – I love your “hakama dress ” address. Grim humour indeed. My point was : Thailand seems currently in an unresolved, contested, power vacuum. I’m aware 20 odd Thai Constitutions barely add up to more than a bag of miltary green beans / has beens. “Moves in the game, rather than the board on which the game is played”, as you so aptly describe it. Shane Tarr compliments me on being an “an old Asia HAND”, and can address me as “Mr.” if he likes. But we all know, in this game as currently being played out : it may well be the cross-dresser who comes out on top !!

There is no “unresolved, contested, power vacuum” in Thailand right now.

Like the kid who can’t accept that hakama and dress do not signify the same things because they exist in different contexts, you and many others on NM seem unwilling/unable to accept that the lack of a written constitution and a delay in the proclamation of a new king do not signify the chaos and conflict you assign to them.

Thailand’s real constitution is an unwritten one and it obviously includes an “article” that mandates a certain amount of “play” on the part of certain special people in the hierarchy.

There is a subsection dealing with having a chuckle at the expense of those who are left fantasizing in the dark too but my “source” says I shouldn’t mention it.

Let’s put a “Bob” (old Aussie equivalent of 10 cents: I think) each way just to make sure: no winners and no losers…..but Chris intuitively and based on my “insider contacts” I think Michael is correct!

I am amazed at the huge number of folk who do not understand that Thailand has neither a King nor a Constitution.
But can some one inform me please as to what the new purpose of the Royal Thai Army is. I ask that in the context that their sole reason for being an organised army was to the protect the King of Thailand. There is no King of Thailand.

Hugh: Thailand has both in the understanding of the Thais involved in the matter and even a liberal-democrat from an Anglospherean pure propaganda zone country must be able to grasp that having no written constitution is not the same as having no constitution.

Undoubtedly you will be able to find Thai academics and journalists who have hitched their wagons to comprador interpretations of Thai culture in order to add to the white man’s burden, but that really doesn’t alter the reality.

Where a country has a monarchy a Regent is appointed if the monarch is a minor, incapacitated or absent. Where there is no monarch there cannot be a Regent

The Royal Thai Army is sworn to protect the King. In this context they arrange coups and declare war from time to time on other Thais such as the Malay Muslim Thais or the invading Red Shirts from North and North East, The last time there was an invasion from outside Thailand such as Japan, 1941, the RTA laid down their weapons because their role is to protect the Monarchy, not the the geographic country of Thailand. Now that there is no monarch I believe they see their role as absolute rulers over Thailand, a position they have waited several generations to arrive at. You may well argue that they have a role in managing the trade in precious gems, as also is the case in Myanmar, but I do not agree that that is a worthwhile enterprise for a Royal Military Group who should be more focused on protecting the monarch.

You are trying to make a point by building on several premises, but your premises are either wrong or not supported by evidence.

First, you say, “Where there is no monarch there cannot be a Regent.” This is not correct in Thailand, as the Thai constitution expressly states that during an interregnum, the president of the privy council shall be regent. That is the basis for Prem’s regency.

You say the RTA is sworn to protect the king, suggesting that that is its sole duty, but you have not supported that premise with any evidence. You are assuming there is no duty to protect the institution of the monarchy as well as the king, but on what basis do you make that assumption? The constitution, law, court decisions? And your assumption that the RTA’s duties do not include defending the country’s borders and sovereignty is not only unsupported by any evidence, it also defies history. Your reference to the Japanese “invasion” is simply wrong; Phibulsongkram explicitly allied with the Japanese, so obviously the military did not oppose the Japanese. And then there were later border disputes in which the RTA did attempt to defend the country, such as against Laos in the 1970s and Cambodia in the last decade.

In sum, your assumptions are wrong and don’t support your apparent conclusion that the RTA today has no “purpose”. Even if your conclusion were correct, then what?

Michael and Shane – I hope you are correct. The last thing Australia wants is more instability in Thailand. If the CP is becomes King, by due process, I’d be happy with that. He’s always been a good friend of Australia. Unfairly much maligned by his enemies.

You have opinions that may well have some merit if one prefixes with the statement: ” Thailand is unique in World affairs…”
The uniqueness I refer to is the fact that you now inform us Thailand has a Regent in spite of no monarchy. This status cannot be achieved in any other country where are Regent only acts on behalf of a monarch not on his own behalf.
The second most significant difference is that RTA’s existence is to enforce the partnership with the monarchy and to suppress the Thai population who live mainly outside Bangkok. The skirmishes you refer to with Laos and Cambodia were very minor events compared to the massacres against the students at Thammasat University,the Red Shirts in Bangkok and the Malay Muslims on too many occasions. By its own history the RTA is constituted to control the population on behalf of the King or Monarch.
Your mention of courts laws etc is just time wasting, Thailand has no laws or courts in the conventional sense. If they did it would be unlawful to overthrow a popularly elected govt. If they did there would be no need for the great human rights defender, Andy Hall, to flee Thailand in fear of his life this morning, if Thailand had proper laws and courts the 2 Burmese scapegoated for murders on Koh Tao Island would not be in jail, they would be free as they deserve to be and finally if Thailand had laws the disgraceful road toll would be much less and some of the very rich perpetrators of that shocking toll would pass through court on their way to jail, to refer to courts and laws is to refer to myths and fairytales. When you are older you will no longer believe.

Thailand’s military government will submit a constitution for royal endorsement on Tuesday (Nov 8), Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha said, a step that should pave the way for a general election in 2017.